Justice Evan Young
Concurring in an opinion in which the Texas Supreme Court held that a judgment sent by e-mail to each party’s attorney in a divorce case was not “rendered” because it was not “publicly” announced, Justice Evan Young has called for an overhaul of the tripartite process in which judgments must be rendered, signed, and entered in Texas courts.
Justice Young’s concurrence in Eve Lynn Baker v. Terry Lee Bizzle (22-0422; March 1, 2024), joined by Chief Justice Hecht and Justice Blacklock, details the history of the current process, which was born in the day of itinerant justice on the rural frontier. At the time, the process worked efficiently because a judgment could be “rendered”—that is, the court’s “pronouncement [of] the sentence of the law”—and, therefore, binding on the parties, before being reduced to writing and entered on the public record. When courtrooms were far-flung and serviced by judges riding the circuit, the timelag between rendition and entry could be relatively lengthy, as the resources for reducing an orally rendered judgment to writing were often located in a different place than the court. The third step of “signing” the judgment grew in importance over time and came to record the moment from which procedural deadlines would run. According to Justice Young, the evolution of this three-step process had resulted in confusion about when a judgment is actually rendered, often leaving parties in a state of confusion about whether they are bound by the judgment or not. In this case, for example, it turns out that although the court communicated a judgment granting the divorce to the parties’ attorneys, the parties were not actually divorced. Justice Young points out that other problems arise as well, particularly with regard to procedural guidelines and jurisdictional questions.
So what’s the solution? Technology. For Justice Young, the pertinent rules and statutes should be amended to provide a single moment at which a judgment is “rendered”: “the moment at which the court’s decision is electronically added to the public docket.” In order to achieve this, Justice Young suggests that the Supreme Court Advisory Committee should be consulted as to the rules changes, and the Legislature as to the statutory ones. As he points out, the Legislature took a big step in the right direction in 2023 when it required trial and appellate courts to deliver through the electronic filing system all orders issued by the court.
We think Justice Young is right. Under the Chief Justice’s leadership, the Court has already accomplished much in the way of bringing clarity and efficiency to the administration of justice in our state. This would be another step on what has been a long road.
